.....How many times have you heard it said of the financial crisis: "global problems require global solutions"? How long will it take for us to realise that real global solutions can only be found when there are global structures in place capable of imposing global order? And of course this does not only apply to finance and economics.
If we worry about the amount of public money which has to be spent to repair the current economic damage, how worried are we about the enormous sum of money which is spent globally on "defence"? This money will either fund obsolescent arms and idle soldiers or it will add to the already horrendous toll of human casualties. Certainly we want to feel safe, but who is "we"? Is it just "us" - our nation - or is it every single person on the planet?
Throughout the world, vast amounts of public money are having to be spent trying to halt recession and turn economies around. This is incurring equally vast debts which will have to be repaid over the next few decades. What would help more than anything to relieve the pain of paying the interest and repaying the loans is a RADICAL rethink of all public expenditure. Top of the list is the astronomical amount now lavished on 'defence'. When 'defence' turns to 'attack', thanatos has a field day. It is profoundly sick to argue that an orgy of government-sponsored violence helps check population growth and brings lucrative reconstruction contracts. It is simply insane to go on investing a fortune in the business of killing and destroying at a time when all our concerted effort will be needed to keep the planet habitable. Homo sapiens will need to become a whole lot more sapient if it is to earn a future.
If you want to play an active role in bringing about a true world order, I recommend a visit to the site below, where you have an opportunity to place your vote and learn a great deal about the urgent need for everybody to get into battle gear NOW:
http://www.voteworldgovernment.org
Another site you will find helpful and thought-provoking is:
http://www.integralworldgovernment.org
For the past two months I have given quotes from a book entitled Plan B 3.0: mobilizing to save civilization. This has been compiled by Lester R. Brown, President of the Earth Policy Institute, based in Washington D.C. The quotes can be found at the bottom of this section of my site. I was intending to give further quotes each month but this is not necessary as the Earth Policy Institute has now made available an excellent tele-guide to the book which summarises the entire argument. You can get to the guide by clicking on the following link:
http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB3/presentation.htm
Our top priority, however, has to be the stopping of the lunatic destruction of life, limb, loved ones, land and resources which is war. We cannot wait for the setting up of a world government. Stopping war is something which can happen quite simply just as soon as enough of us decide it has to happen:
NOT WAR
[1] We must campaign to press the main players at the Security Council to call an immediate halt to all arms production with immediate effect. In order for this to be effective, a global structure has to be set up with the power to enforce international law as impartially, as vigorously and as universally as we expect national laws to be enforced within the state. Since this would deprive national politicians of their armies, we cannot expect much enthusiasm from them for such a radical clipping of their wings. The pressure for it to happen has to come from below.
[2] All those currently kept in work by their country’s 'defence' contracts must have their salaries and pensions guaranteed by their governments until they can be employed in the non-death-dealing sectors of their economies.
[3] All private manufacture and trading in armaments must cease immediately and all existing weapons, whether publicly or privately owned, must be surrendered to the Global Enforcement Agency [GEA] - or some such body - empowered to secure global peace and monitor human rights.*
[4] All GEA personnel will be bound by a strict code of conduct which outlaws any abuse of its power, i.e. any attempt to act in ways contrary to or not definable by its mission, which will be to safeguard the human rights of all people everywhere, pre-eminently the right to life and to freedom within the law. Training academies will be set up by the GEA across the globe as speedily as practicable to ensure that all personnel are trained to the highest standards.
[5] If these proposals seem like crying for the moon, this is only because we, as a race, have given our tribalism such an intolerably long innings that anything different seems now to be almost unthinkable. The important question is not: can these things happen? Rather, it is: do we really and truly want them to happen? If not, why not? Remember, where there is a will, there has to be a way
*
The total inadequacy of the status quo is demonstrated by the following quote from the International Herald Tribune in the "UN Wire", 23 July, 2008: Le Roy to assume difficult UN chief peacekeeper postOn October 2, 2008, "UN wire" published this item:
Ban warns attacks against UN rising worldwide
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed concern Wednesday that UN
staff are being directly targeted for attack by extremists and armed groups at a
rate never seen before. Ban said security for humanitarian and UN personnel
around the world is deteriorating under a "wide scale of threats."
The Washington Times/The Associated Press (10/1)
----
To put the above in historical perspective here is what the great German philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote in 1796. What follows is quoted from his "Project for a Perpetual Peace":
".....to pay men to kill or to be killed seems to entail using them as mere machines and tools in the hand of another (the state)......
...each state places its majesty (for it is absurd to speak of the majesty of the people) in being subject to no external juridical restraint, and the splendour of its sovereign consists in the fact that many thousands stand at his command to sacrifice themselves for something that does not concern them and without his needing to place himself in the least danger. The chief difference between European and American savages lies in the fact that many tribes of the latter have been eaten by their enemies, while the former know how to make better use of their conquered enemies than to dine off them; they know better how to use them to increase the number of their subjects and thus the quantity of instruments for even more extensive wars. ...
...States do not plead their cause before a tribunal; war alone is their way of bringing suit. But by war and its favourable issue, in victory, right is not decided, and though by a treaty of peace this particular war is brought to an end, the state of war, of always finding a new pretext to hostilities, is not terminated.......
.…[states] already have an internal juridical constitution and have thus outgrown compulsion from others to submit to a more extended lawful constitution according to their ideas of right. This is true in spite of the fact that reason, from its throne of supreme moral legislating authority, absolutely condemns war as a legal recourse and makes a state of peace a direct duty, even though peace cannot be established or secured except by a compact among nations. ...
... The concept of a law of nations as a right to make war does not really mean anything, because it is then a law of deciding what is right by unilateral maxims through force and not by universally valid public laws which restrict the freedom of each one. ...
... America, the lands inhabited by the Negro, the Spice Islands, the Cape, etc., were at the time of their discovery considered by these civilized intruders as lands without owners, for they counted the inhabitants as nothing. In East India (Hindustan), under the pretence of establishing economic undertakings, they brought in foreign soldiers and used them to oppress the natives, excited widespread wars among the various states, spread famine, rebellion, perfidy, and the whole litany of evils which afflict mankind. ...
... It would not ill become a people that has just terminated a war to decree, besides a day of thanksgiving, a day of fasting in order to ask heaven, in the name of the state, for forgiveness for the great iniquity which the human race still goes on to perpetuate in refusing to submit to a lawful constitution in their relation to other peoples, preferring, from pride in their independence, to make use of the barbarous means of war even though they are not able to attain what is sought, namely, the rights of a single state. The thanksgiving for victory won during the war, the hymns which are sung to the God of Hosts (in good Israelitic manner), stand in equally sharp contrast to the moral idea of the Father of Men. For they not only show a sad enough indifference to the way in which nations seek their rights, but in addition express a joy in having annihilated a multitude of men or their happiness."
The ebook version [Microsoft Reader] of OURTOPIA which I wrote in 2004 can now be obtained FREE simply by emailing your request to: jngjones@msn.com For the paperback version, go to my "OTHER BOOKS" page.
The quotes for March from Lester Brown's book spelled out the urgency of the situation:
After looking at the desperate situation in Haiti, Craig Cox, Executive Director of the U.S.-based Soil and Water Conservation Society, wrote, “I was reminded recently that the benefits of resource conservation—at the most basic level—are still out of reach for many. Ecological and social collapses have reinforced each other in a downward spiral into poverty, environmental degradation, social injustice, disease, and violence.” Unfortunately, the situation Cox describes is what lies ahead for more and more countries if we do not restore the earth’s health.
Restoring the earth will take an enormous international effort, one far larger and more demanding than the often-cited Marshall Plan that helped rebuild war-torn Europe and Japan. And such an initiative must be undertaken at wartime speed lest environmental deterioration translate into economic decline and state failure, just as it did for earlier civilizations that violated nature’s thresholds and ignored its deadlines. [pp151f]
The Plan B goals for developing renewable sources of energy by 2020 …… are based not on what is conventionally believed to be politically feasible, but on what we think is needed to prevent irreversible climate change. This is not Plan A, business as usual. This is Plan B—a wartime mobilization, an all-out response proportionate to the threat that global warming presents to our future. [p238]
Just as the information and communications economies have changed beyond recognition over the past two decades, so too will the energy economy over the next decade. There is one outstanding difference. Whereas the restructuring of the information and communications sectors was shaped by advancing technology and market forces, the restructuring of the energy economy will be driven also by the realization that the fate of our civilization may depend not only on doing so, but doing so at wartime speed. [p238]
Whereas fossil fuels helped globalize the energy economy, shifting to renewable sources will localize it. We anticipate that the energy transition will be driven largely by mounting concerns about climate change, by climbing oil prices, and by the restructuring of taxes to incorporate the indirect costs of burning fossil fuels. It is encouraging to know that we now have the technologies to build a new energy economy, one that is not climate-disruptive, that does not pollute the air, and that can last as long as the sun itself. The question is no longer whether we can develop a climate-stabilizing energy economy, but whether we can develop it before climate change spins out of control [p261]
What if, for example, three years from now scientists announced that we have waited too long to cut carbon emissions and that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet is irreversible? How would the realization that we are responsible for a coming 7-meter (23-foot) rise in sea level and hundred of millions of refugees from rising seas affect us? How would it affect our sense of self, our sense of who we are? It could trigger a fracturing of society along generational lines like the more familiar fracturing of societies along racial, religious, and ethnic lines. How will we respond to our children when they ask, “How could you do this to us?” How could you leave us facing such chaos? These are questions we need to be thinking about now—because if we fail to act quickly enough, these are precisely the questions we will be asked. [p266]
The April quotes:
Mark Serreze, a veteran Arctic specialist with the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center, said: “It’s amazing. If you asked me a couple of years ago when the Arctic could lose all of its ice, then I would have said 2100, or 2070 maybe. But now I think that 2030 is a reasonable estimate.” [p3] Robert Corell, chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment noted that the projected rise in sea level during this century of 18–59 centimeters (7–23 inches) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was based on data that were two years old. He said that some scientists now believe the increase could be as much as 2 meters. [p4] Glaciers on the Tibet-Qinghai Plateau that feed the Yellow and Yangtze rivers are melting at 7 percent a year. Yao Tandong, one of China’s leading glaciologists, believes that at this rate, two thirds of these glaciers could disappear by 2060.These glaciers in the Himalayas and on the Tibet-Qinghai Plateau feed all the major rivers of Asia, including the Indus, Ganges, Mekong, Yangtze, and Yellow Rivers. It is the water from these rivers that irrigates the rice and wheat fields in the region. [p4] We can see from ice melting alone that our civilization is in trouble. If the Greenland ice sheet melts, sea level rises 7 meters (23 feet). If the West Antarctic Ice Sheet breaks up, and many scientists think it could go before Greenland, it adds another 5 meters to the increase, for a total of 12 meters (39 feet). The International Institute for Environment and Development has studied the likely effects of a 10-meter (33-foot) rise. Their 2007 study projected more than 600 million refugees from rising seas. More people than currently live in the United States and Western Europe combined would be forced to migrate inland to escape the rising waters. [p5]
A rise in temperature to the point where the earth’s ice sheets and glaciers melt is only one of many environmental tipping points needing our attention. While the earth’s temperature is rising, water tables are falling on every continent. Here the challenge is to raise water use efficiency and stabilize population before water shortages become life-threatening. Population growth, which contributes to all the problems discussed here, has its own tipping point. Scores of countries have developed enough economically to sharply reduce mortality but not yet enough to reduce fertility. As a result, they are caught in the demographic trap—a situation where rapid population growth begets poverty and poverty begets rapid population growth. In this situation, countries eventually tip one way or the other. They either break out of the cycle or they break down. Over the last few decades, the world has accumulated a growing number of unresolved problems, including those just mentioned. As the stresses from these unresolved problems accumulate, weaker governments are beginning to break down, leading to what are now commonly referred to as failing states. Failing states are an early sign of a failing civilization. The countries at the top of the lengthening list of failing states are not particularly surprising. They include, for example, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Chad, Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Haiti. And the list grows longer each year, raising a disturbing question: How many failing states will it take before civilization itself fails? No one knows the answer, but it is a question we must ask. [pp5f]
The market is in many ways an
incredible institution. It allocates
resources with an efficiency that no central planning body can match and it
easily balances supply and demand. The market has some fundamental weaknesses,
however. It does not incorporate into prices the indirect costs of producing
goods. It does not value nature’s services properly. And it does not
respect the sustainable yield thresholds of natural systems. It also favors the near term over the long term, showing little concern for future generations. One of the best examples of this massive market failure can be seen in the United States, where the gasoline pump price in mid-2007 was $3 per gallon. But this price reflects only the cost of discovering the oil, pumping it to the surface, refining it into gasoline, and delivering the gas to service stations. It overlooks the costs of climate change as well as the costs of tax subsidies to the oil industry (such as the oil depletion allowance), the burgeoning military costs of protecting access to oil in the politically unstable Middle East, and the health care costs for treating respiratory illnesses from breathing polluted air.[p7]
Today, more than ever before,
we need political leaders who can see the big picture, who understand the
relationship between the economy and its environmental support systems. And
since the principal advisors to government are economists,
we need economists who can think like ecologists. Unfortunately they are rare.
[p8] The Icelanders
crossed a political tipping point that enabled them to come together and limit
grazing before grassland deterioration reached the point of no return. The
Sumerians and Mayans failed to do so. Time ran out. [p10]
While the economy is growing
exponentially, the earth’s natural capacities, such as its ability to supply
fresh water, forest products, and seafood, have not increased. A team of
scientists led by Mathis Wackernagel concluded in a 2002 study published by
the U.S. National Academy of Sciences that humanity’s collective demands first
surpassed the earth’s regenerative capacity around 1980. …..A four-year study
of the world’s ecosystems by 1,360 scientists, the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, reported that 15 of 24 primary ecosystem services are being
degraded or pushed beyond their limits.[p11]
Daniel Nepstad, an
Amazon-based senior scientist from the Woods Hole Research Center, sees a
future of “megafires” sweeping through the drying jungle. He notes that the
carbon stored in the Amazon’s trees equals roughly 15 years of human-induced
carbon emissions in the atmosphere. If we reach this tipping point we will
have triggered yet another climate feedback, taken another step that could
help seal our fate as a civilization.[p12]
For almost as long as I can
remember we have been saying that the United States, with 5 percent of the
world’s people, consumes a third or more of the earth’s resources. That was
true. It is no longer true. Today China consumes more basic resources than the
United States does. ….. If we assume that in 2030 there are three cars for
every four people in China, as there now are in the United States, China will
have 1.1 billion cars. The world currently has 860 million cars. To provide
the needed roads, highways, and parking lots, China would have to pave an area
comparable to what it now plants in rice.[p13] By 2030 China would need 98
million barrels of oil a day. The world is currently producing 85 million
barrels a day and may never produce much more than that. There go the world’s
oil reserves. What China is teaching us is that the western economic model—the
fossil-fuel-based, automobile-centered, throwaway economy—is not going to work
for China. If it does not work for China, it will not work for India, which by
2030 may have an even larger population than China. Nor will it work for the
other 3 billion people in developing countries who are also dreaming the
“American dream.” [p14]